I would like to say that whoever thought to get Michael J. Fox to do a pro-stem cell candidate ad while off his meds deserves a freakin' medal.
I know some folks in the sanctity of life crowd think it's a cheap shot...but since we've endured the odd bloody fetus from their camp over the past few decades my thoughts run somewhere along the lines of "fuck them". Fair's fair.
I think it should go beyond that. Someone should show what Reagan looked like in the final stages of Alzheimer's. I assure you there was nothing quiet or dignified about it. Before his personality completely disintegrated, he probably became very belligerent and erratic in his behavior, because his frontal lobes were gone. He probably said horrible things to people he had loved for years. Then it got worse. And by the end, he was almost certainly intubated, because he no longer remembered how to swallow his own spit.
Make you squirm? Good. Death is ugly enough, but the long slow slide into it from neurodegeneration is something that I would personally kill myself to avoid.
There's a time to respect the ideological differences you might have with others. There's a time for compromise, and meeting halfway. But frankly, I'm tired of seeing people and their families suffer through especially nasty exits from this world. And more than that, I'm tired of seeing the research that could help them being held up by an insane devotion to a particular interpretation of the will of some 4000-year old desert nomad's imaginary friend.
I'm glad to see the gloves coming off in this debate. May it ever be so.
19 comments:
"some 4000-year old desert nomad's imaginary friend." lol. very clever
i was thinkin the same thing.
In other news - B is struck by a bolt of lighting.
Blasphemy! I love it!
If your high school Jesus-friends could see you now...
Blasphemy? Lightening?
I don't think I aimed any harsh words at any diety which may or may not exist...only at a subset of his followers...
I'm sure he knows the difference, anyway...
;)
brian, how do these two sides meet half way?
one side, my side, believes in the sactity of human life from the moment of conception. the other side does not, or does not as strongly.
where can someone like myself compromise with someone like yourself?
Well, that is the million dollar question, isn't it?
Believe it or not...I am not completely unsympathetic to the pro-life position. If you genuinely believe that human life is special and that one's human-ness begins at the moment of conception, then I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion than abortion is murder and a fetus is an innocent life worthy of protection.
The reasoning makes perfect sense to me...I just don't agree with those premises.
I don't think that being an undifferentiated cluster of cells that carries human DNA makes you human any more than being an acorn makes you a tree or being the Oxford Unabbridged makes you the complete works of Shakespeare.
But that's me.
(I realize that begs the question of "if not at conception then when" and we can do that some other time but it is peripheral for now...)
So to answer your question...I think if we're being honest, there is no place to compromise. It's a collision of absolutes.
if not at conception then when?
Jean Rasczak: All right, let's sum up. This year in history, we talked about the failure of democracy. How the social scientists of the 21st Century brought our world to the brink of chaos. We talked about the veterans, how they took control and imposed the stability that has lasted for generations since. We talked about the rights and privileges between those who served in the armed forces and those who haven't, therefore called citizens and civilians.
[to a student]
Jean Rasczak: You. Why are only citizens allowed to vote?
Student: It's a reward. Something the federation gives you for doing federal service.
Jean Rasczak: No. Something given has no basis in value. When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force my friends is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.
Too funny.
Dear god how appropriate. Thank you.
That is easily the most underrated movie of the past 20 years, IMHO.
(And one of the great misunderstood books of the 20th century.)
And if the rest of you don't recognize where that is from, then you are not as cool as Kyle and me. Which is so sad I don't even know where to begin...
LOL.
i'll admit to such lack of coolness.
now, we know where i stand on embryonic research, and where you stand, and we can respect each other for their reasonings in coming to their place.
my main issue in this debate is why does govt money need to be used in the first place? is it the role of govt to attempt to cure disease? havent the best advances been made with private money? will other hoped-for cures be equally politicized?
and is it morally proper to take, through force of govt, money from people who may find its use abhorant, when such use is not in the national interest, or within the proper framework of govt's role?
this debate is NOT about funding embryonic research. its about who is being forced to pay for it.
knowing you idealogically as i think i do, dare i say that now we can find the common ground?
as a defender of human life and its sanctity, i am used to being accused of forcing my morality on others.
taxpayer funded emryonic research cannot defend against this same accusation.
dare i say, this issue gets its fire mostly from those who oppose me soley for the purpose of opposing me? what other emotional connection to this issue could there be? it is certainly not based on the sucesses in the lab.
a rallying cry to fight the 'Jesus people' everwhere, no matter what the issue is?
Yep - same argument to be made about evolution in the schools. Just goes to show the greatest detriment to doing anything via government is the need to make single decision rather allow for a dynamic market place of ideas.
That said, there are serious problems with private provision of science. I think it is a reasonable trade-off that if science is going to suck from the public teat, they should at least have the good graces to deflect progress from the more morally objectionable of their pursuits.
I say deflect because science will find its way around the regs. Progress is like a vine, a few uncumberances slow things down, maybe redirect, but that just opens the door of other pursuits. Other technolgies. Do we move forward as fast? No. But maybe that is fair tradeoff?
Of course - this assumes a closed system. If Korea and China are going to undermine our competitive capabilties in the sciences, I guess you could make an argument. But then, we will all just find something else to be good in. Like making music videos. Sucks if you wasted all that time becoming a scientist but now you know how the American steel worker feels.
Hey Gino,
You've brought up a lot of big issues I've spent a lot of time thinking about (and still do). And for good reason...let's just say I am hardly a disinterested party when it comes to where research funding comes from.
I don't have time address them, and they merit their own post(s) anyway, but let me quickly hit one:
"havent the best advances been made with private money?"
Short answer: no, not really.
More later (as in probably later this week). Right now I'm busy spending your tax dollars on research, and you aren't paying me to blog ;)
brian, i look forward to what you have to offer.
one thing i can count one: you respect an honest position you disagree with.
not sure what you do, but if i remember... it has something to do with labs.
oh yeah, i already took a shot at MJ Fox on my own blog.
Matt - wrong wrong wrong.
That movie defined by its poor breast action. In a movie that featured a young Denise Richards we see not her but that man-girl naked.
we see not her but that man-girl naked
I assume you mean Casper van What's-his-name?
OK--re: Starship Troopers, book vs. movie. The book reads pro-facsist to most people, but in light of Heinlein's larger body of work, I find it very difficult to buy the fact the RAH meant it that way. He was famously coy about the extent to which he actually bought into the ideas his books explored...
Verhooven's movie seems to take the pro-facsist interpretation literally, and attacks it in the form of satire. The movie is silly and over the top on purpose, for a couple of reasons. One is that's just Verhooven's style, and you either love it or hate it. The other is that it makes the humans completely unsympathetic, which is kind of a feat when you consider the fact that they are (literally) up against gigantic murderous bugs.
And come on--any movie with a semi-evil Doogie Howser AND a scenery-chewing Michael Ironside is worth the price of admission.
Michael Ironside is such the man.
The movie is filled will such stellar lines.
Well I know you knew that...
But google "heinlein+fascist" and you'll see that plenty of people don't...
Post a Comment